Handling the John Edwards story

Times readers and others since late July have sent notes by the dozens to the readers' representative office, asking if The Times was looking into a story published by the National Enquirer containing allegations about John Edwards. National Editor Scott Kraft sent an e-mail Thursday night to the Times' communications department and the readers' representative office, two departments that have fielded the questions about how this story was being handled. [Update: This posting earlier said that The Times hadn't published anything about the Enquirer reports; in fact, the Opinion LA blog did post an item on July 23 that was a roundup of coverage by others.] Kraft's note:

"We have decided to post, on Top of the Ticket, an item and link to a Charlotte Observer report, quoting Democratic supporters of Edwards on the record as saying that they think he needs to address the National Enquirer report if he hopes to speak at the convention.

"While we have stayed away from that Enquirer report, because we couldn't confirm it, this strikes us as a legitimate story -- that on-the-record Dems, including a former Edwards campaign manager, are criticizing Edwards' decision to stay mum on the topic and saying it might affect his credibility enough that he wouldn't get a speaking slot at the convention. (Those speaking slots haven't been decided yet, the party says.)"

Comments

[evan maxwell]

Years ago, as a young reporter at the LA Times, I asked Editor Bill Thomas why the paper was publishing the first Watergate stories as small, single-column Washington Post wire service stories inside the paper.

He said that the decision was made because the leadership of the paper was not really sure whether the Post reporters knew what they were talking about.

In which case, I thought to myself, why are we even bothering to publish anything about this supposed scandal.

I sense the Edwards situation is only marginally different. The paper's staff doesn't know what to do with a story like this, despite the pretty clear evidence that it is true and even important. So instead, they throw it to the bloggers, today's version of burying the story inside. The tactic seems to give a certain deniability, in case the story might be wrong-headed.

This is a pretty good example of the new paradigm of journalism, where the Blogosphere drives the stories that the MSM can't stomach, can't advance or doesn't quite believe.

[David]

Comparing the Edwards sex gossip to Watergate is ridiculous. Who cares if he had an affair? It's none of your business.

Do you think any public figure who ever deviates from heterosexual monogamy should be investigated, stalked and have everything about his/her sex life revealed?

Should the LA TImes be reporting on Michelle Obama's sex life? Do you need to know if Hillary Clinton ever did it with anyone besides Bill? Why is Edwards' penis any of your concern?

[Clay]

Mr. Maxwell, with all due respect, if you think the Edwards story needs to be reported on because of the "pretty clear evidence it is true and even important" then thank heavens you're no longer in journalism. This is a story reported by the National Enquirer, in and of itself reason to be skeptical. Further, the Enquirer story does not cite a witness, have any quotes or a photo of Edwards meeting with anyone. So tell us, former journalist, just how should this story be reported on? With daily updates? And based on what, exactly?

[confused]

I'm stuck in the circle: so the traditional media won't cover it because the traditional media hasn't covered it? Would somebody just cover the gosh darn story!? Enough already. The media is hiding behind a host of peripheral duties when its main duty to its readers--to report noteworthy things that are going on, like this scandal (which exists by the way, regardless of whether the allegations are confirmed to the satisfaction of some), is not being carried out.

[wallace]

Evan Maxwell,

Or perhaps the motivations are more, shall we say, responsible. Perhaps like other newspapers (so far, anyway) they can't confirm it themselves.

It's an "old paradigm" but a pretty good one. Surely, you remember doing that as a young reporter...

[edward]

1. When Rep. Henry Hyde, R-Ill., engaged in an affair, you looked the other way, even as Hyde led the impeachment effort against President Clinton. When others reported it, you regurgitated their writings.
2. When Sen. Strom Thurmond, R-S.C., fathered a child from a relationship with a black woman, yet continued to rant against providing broader voting rights for blacks in the south, you looked the other way. It wasn't until Thurmond chose to disclose it that you reported it. You didn't report on his other womanizing, either.
3. When Rep. Mark Foley, R-Fla., bashed gays on the House floor, you looked the other way in spite of complaints from pages he was harrassing them. It wasn't until a TV reporter exposed Foley that you reported it.
4. When Sen. Larry Craig, R-Wash., became notorious in Washington for hitting on men while he embraced the GOP platform against gays, you looked the other way. It was only his arrest in Minneapolis that prompted you to look at this matter.
I could go on.
Now you are peddling rumors and innuendo involving a Democrat, John Edwards, who is no longer an elected political official, is not running for any political office, and has sufficient personal income to return to private life. And you post a link to someone else's work.
What lazy and slimy hypocrites.

[Pragmatist]

In 2005 the Enquirer ran a story saying the President George W. Bush had resumed substance abuse and was behaving erratically. The story could not be confirmed by any mainstream media and very few mentioned it. This story remains unconfirmed and there numerous factual questions have been raised (including someone else admitting paternity). If the Bush story had been run, the voices we now hear would be screaming "Yellow Journalism" and they would be right. And there is a lot more public interest in drunken behavior by a sitting President than private misconduct by a retired senator.
The Enquirer by my count has issued retractions under threat of a suit or actually lost a libel suit about a dozen times in recent years. Printing there stuff without confirmation would be a truly reckless act.

[psemerson]

As a journalist, I don't understand this "private life" business. No, I'm not being sarcastic; the main rule of thumb I was taught to use, and still use today, is "public figure."

I'm not saying someone who's a public figure doesn't have a private life; I don't need to know how much Barack Obama paid for a car, for example. However, if he's promoting American jobs in the auto industry, the make of that car is fair game. And if the car dealer turns out to be a major contributor to the campaign, it's fair game to ask about the terms. What's too personal for some is someone else's transparency.

The idea that John Edwards has somehow retired from public life and is no longer a public figure is, frankly, erroneous and finding the city limits of ludicrous. He's kept in the public eye since Jan. 30; the terms of that, in "suspending" but not "ending" his campaign, is a bit of wordsmithy that left the door open for returning to the fray. That door can swing the other way; the rather clever bit of "suspension" gives the notion that he could leap back in at a moment's notice. Yes, it's hair-splitting time, but he's a candidate in limbo -- not a "private citizen." (And, BTW, he's still asking for campaign funds on his Website, and there's nothing about just using it to retire campaign debt.)

There's also the matter that all of this alleged behavior occuring Edwards' run for the presidency, and the fact that he's still a party leader and, unless he specifically states he's completely out of any consideration for vice president or a future cabinet post (something he's not done), he's a figure that merits coverage.

We're already seeing clear indications that this matter is affecting political coverage -- you'll note absolutely no mention of Edwards in today's Times on the vice-presidential story, while other former candidates pop right up. If there's facts to this piece, let's hear it. If it's nothing but fantasy, it's innuendo clouding the political process when everyone's running on the idea of transparency.

This is a story that the "MSM" is keeping under a cloak while it affects the race for the presidency. The last time this happened, with Gennifer Flowers and the Enquirer, the MSM looked stupid. This time, it's an argument that it's the dodo bird.

[student journalist]

I don't think the argument here is whether the story was newsworthy. He is a public figure that was close to presidency.

Also, because his wife had cancer while he had the affair. Now, he looks pretty darn lowly.

News isn't when bad people do bad things, it's when good people do bad things.

Politicians try to portray themselves as perfect beings. When their humanity is exposed, the facade is up.

People want to read about it and I think the LAT did the right thing by waiting on the validity of the story before reporting on it.

[Harold Tuchel]

You have to be able to TRUST a public official...you may call it morality, fidelity, honesty, call it what you want. If their signifigant other can't trust them on an important life matter, how can the public trust them at all.
The "private life" argument tries to wash out any measure of honesty or behavior out of the equation. If we do that why should be surprised if a politician does whatever they damn well please when they are elected.

[Phil]

Edwards had an affair. He declined to confirm it for many months. Meanwhile, his own wife forgives him. This matter is irrelevant to every reader, citizen, voter, and absolutely unconnected to Edwards' qualifications for public life. For all practical purposes, it's not even worthy of news reporting. Better still if it mattered so little to the public that the revelation were ignored by us. It's really of no material consequence to us. People stray.

[Angela]

When JE decided to throw caution to the wind and jeopardize the Democrats bid to win the White House this affair became a public matter. He ran for President and could have won the nomination during a time when we are at war, people are losing their homes and gas is at an all time high. Our reputation is shot through out the world - we need a leader who can be trusted. He has proven he cannot.

[Angela]

To the person who asks should the the media report on Michelle Obama or Hillary's sex life - it all depends on when it was done. If either is reckless enough to jeopardize the party by playing footsy during the campaign when you have the religious right scrutinizing their every move then yes- because that would mean their private parts govern them more than their brain does. Also let's remember there is a baby out there that deserves to have her father's name on her birth certificate. If JE is paying this woman hush money NOT to put his name on the certificate, he's a sleeze ball.
Regardless of what he thinks, it's not just about him. And remember, it's usually not the crime, but the cover up.

[Curtis LeMay]

Folks,

While it certainly makes perfect sense to treat ANY CLAIMS by the National Enquirer with more than a modicum of doubt, it is also wise to be very skeptical of politicians.

Let's face it: Edwards lied. Infinitely worse still, Edwards lied about fooling around with another woman WHILE his wife was/is struggling to overcome a life-threatening cancer.

Short of killing ones children, that is as low as a spouse can get.

That he did so indicates a very sick individual indeed. What he did would be considered reprehensible and unforgivable by an overwhelming majority of Americans. How would YOU feel if your (alleged) better half fooled around while YOU were fighting cancer, eh?

As he ran for President, and came within a whisker of being elected VP, by definition means we need to know what type of man he is, or is not-as the case may be.

Edwards has deep and fundamental character flaws. That he treated his wife with such disdain and with such a total lack of respect and honor indicates clearly that he is by no means a man worthy of our trust and therefore any public office.

Was there a "keep it hush-hush" bias at the LA Times over this matter? No more so than that expressed by the majority of the liberal MSM. That is a far larger question and must be answered by the Managing Editors of most of America's newspapers themselves-and if they don't they will continue to hemorrhage readers as they have been for a number of years now...